Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
1.1 Background
Based on the last year study, the number of waste in IPB Dramaga reached
6,626.67 kg / month or about 0.25 kg. This amount was obtained from the audit
in some waste shelters (TPS) those spread around the campus. The amount is
assumed to be less accurate because a lot of waste have been taken in advance
by scavengers before entering the waste shelters. Based on this assumption,
waste re-audit must be conducted in every unit in campus.
1
Previous studies conducted at Bogor Agricultural University that focused on
waste generation and littering behavior of student and teacher in campus. The
main problem outlined is insuffiency of waste bin in some areas and waste is
being improperly sorted into the wrong streams. For example, items that belong
in the organics stream may be thrown into the garbage stream. This means that
efforts to divert waste into separate streams, using the three-bin system at
campus, create problems of waste stream contamination.
1.2 Objectives
The research question for this study is: Is the waste bin facility in IPB
campus has already adequate in number and placement to support zero waste
movement in 2020?
2
II. Methodology
II.1 Study site
Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) (Fig 1) is one of the biggest universities
in Indonesia. There are around 24,000 students and faculty members at this
university every year. This has resulted into generation of a significant amount of
solid waste (both organic and inorganic) in the University. An estimated 5,310 m 3
of solid waste was revealed to be generated by the University monthly.
3
cardboard taken by scavengers. Therefore, waste audit carried out directly on
the campus units before the garbage transported to the temporary landfill and
landfill.
Dept of Landscape
6 A4 Architecture 43 I1 Dept of Nutrition Science
4
19 E1 Dept of Forest Management 56 CEN1 Center for Environmental Research
Dept of Conservation of
Forest Resources and
21 E3 Ecotourism 58 CEN3 Shigeta Animal Pharmaceuticals
Faculty of Agricultural
23 F Technology 60 DOR4 Amarilis Dormitory
Dept of Agroindustrial
26 F3 Technology 63 HOS2 Animal Hospital
Five enumerators have been selected to sort and calculating the sorted
waste in each work unit. Each enumerator visited 14-15 work unit in campus.
Enumerators brought some equipments when doing the waste audit such as
protective mask, latex gloves, plastic bag, scale, and notebook. Before waste
calculation, waste was sorted into some types such as:
1. Dry leaves
5
2. Leftovers
3. Paper
4. Plastic
5. Bottle and cup
6. Cardboard
7. Metal
8. Glass
9. Styrofoam
10.Tissue and sanitary napkin
11.Beverage container
The particular waste stream was then sorted on plastic sheets into the
eleven different streams. Each stream was weighed individually, which allowed
the percent contamination of each stream to be determined. While doing this,
protective protective mask was worn as well as latex gloves. Each group member
had a consistent role in the waste audit process. One student recorded the
weights, one student weighed the waste, two students separated the waste, and
one student assisted all positions. This ensured consistency throughout the
process. The results of the first waste audit were compiled from each location
into Microsoft Excel in order to better analyze the data.
Waste number that has been collected is in daily amount. Then it was
processed into the monthly amount. Data was served mothly because each unit
didn’t dispose waste simultaneously everyday. Therefore the amount of the
waste is converted into monthly data. Converting data into monthly data based
on the frequency of waste disposal.
6
conducting the recycling program. To support the program, sorted waste bins
should be used in whole area in campus so that the entire campus community
can help to achieve a recycling program by separating trash. If that goes well,
the process of recycling and reusing waste can be run easily.
7
III.General Condition of Study Area
8
Figure 2. Non-sorting bins
9
IV. Results and Discussion
IV.1 Waste audit result
Based on the results of waste calculating on each work unit, some data has
been obtained in Table 3.
R 0 296 164 96 60 0 0 0 0 0 38 0
151.6
A2 0 8 66.8 73.28 35.36 0 0 0 0.8 0 112 0
D1
0 224 256 736 448 0 0 0 16 0 56 0
D2
CAN1
E 0 30 28 50 62 44 0 0 12 0 14 0
E1 120 36 26 38 42 28 0 0 0 0 32 0
E2 0 36 6 10 20 10 0 0 6 0 8 0
E3 6 60 49 26 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 10
E4 0 36 12 22 20 22 0 0 6 0 12 0
F1
F3
F4
G1 0 0 36 22 8 0 0 0 16 0 0 0
10
G2 0 0 25 14 64 0 0 0 5 0 3 0
G6 0 0 20 5 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
G7 0 0 39 8 7 0 0 20 3 0 0 0
G8 0 102 16 6.4 12 6 4 0 2 0 0
18.07
H 0 23.6 24.1 7.53 2 5.02 0 0 0 0 0 0
H3 0 108 20.24 3 7 0 0 4 1 0 0 0
H4 0 78.4 8.5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 228 0 38 78 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I2 0 108 0 104 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I3 0 37.2 12 10 15 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0
CCR 52.8 154.8 102 67.6 123.2 0 6.8 6 0.6 44.8 26 0.56
SC 0 0 14 14 30 28 0 0 6 0 0 0
HOS1 0 0 21 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOS2 1.2 21.6 20.51 34.66 26.43 0 1.2 0 0.2 5 1.6 8.6
101.9
GRA 0 2 101.36 24.36 34.48 200 6.72 2.8 0 0 0.56 0
CAN3 0 124 0 40 20 52 0 0 4 0 4 0
11
CAN5 103.2 813.6 98.4 133.2 38.4 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0
629.0
CAN7 192 4 73.92 70.32 45.12 0 0.72 2.88 0 0 4.92 0
CAN1
0 0 345.6 15.6 9.6 38.16 50 2 0 0 0 2.4 0
CAN1 293.7
1 0 6 16.8 48.8 15.92 8 0.96 0 0 0 0 0
TOTA 4489. 1032 7261.3 10541. 6137. 3511.8 273.3 85.7 695.5 19.4
L 8 7 4 2 4 6 7 2 5 327.94 2273.18 9
Waste type: 1. Dry leaves, 2. Leftovers, 3. Paper, 4.Plastic, 5. Bottle and cup, 6.
Cardboard, 7. Metal, 8. Glass, 9. Styrofoam, 10. Tissue and sanitary napkin, 11. Beverage
container
From Table 2 can be seen that some faculties have coordinated with
department in waste disposal. Hence, waste disposal is conducted by the faculty
not department. Based on audit, plastic is a type of waste that has contributed
most to the campus waste which is about 10,541.2 kg per month. Food leftovers
ranks second highest with 10,327 kg / month. The organic waste generation per
month reached 14,816.764 kg, while the inorganic waste reached 31,127. 052 kg
/ month. Total organic and inorganic waste reaches 45,943.816 kg / month.
12
inorganic waste and 4,472.34 kg of organic waste. Number of waste from
calculation in temporary landfill and work unit have differences. The waste
amount calculated from work unit has a larger amount. This is because the waste
in temporary landfill already taken up by scavenger so that the waste number
was smaller.
Scavengers, those individuals who recover items from waste for the
purpose of reuse or recycing, play an important role in transforming discarded
objects into objects of value. In this role, scavengers are mediators in the
relationship between societies and their environments. In contemporary
societies, scavenging activities reduce the amount of wastes that need to
becollected, transported, and disposedof, and they extend the life of dumps and
landfills (Medina, 2007).
Based on the different audit methods, the waste number has a significant
difference. According to the waste audit that conducted in waste shelter, the
waste number generated by every person of the campus (students and staffs) is
about 0.25 kg / month. While based on the waste audit in each unit, garbage
generated each campus residents reached 0.5 kg / month. This number is two
times greater than the results obtained last year.
Table 4. The differences of waste number that obtained in 2016 and 2015
Weight (Kg)
No Type Categories
2016 2015
1 Dry Leaves 4,489.80
Organic 4,472,34
2 Leftovers 10,326.96
3 Paper 7,261.34 379,71
4 Plastic 10,541.20 616,28
5 Bottle and Cup 6,137.40
6 Cardboard 3,511.86
7 Metal 273.37 82,83
Inorganic
8 Glass 85.72 19,88
9 Styrofoam 695.55 99,40
10 Tissue and Sanitary Napkins 327.94
11 Beverage Container 2,273.18 619,59
12 Others 19.49 336,63
Total 45,943,82 6,626.67
Total Organic 14,816,76 4,472.34
Total Inorganic 31,127,05 2,154.33
13
The difference this result implies that before reaching waste shelter, a half
of waste number has been reduced. The presence of scavengers on campus can
indirectly provide easiness on waste management. Most types of waste those are
reduced before entering the waste shelters are paper, cardboard, bottles and
beverage containers.
Decreasing the amount of trash before entering the waste shelters was not
enough to make all the waste on campus managed. In the landfill, there is still
much waste that is not transported to the city landfill and managed properly.
Moreover, to reduce the amount of waste in the landfill of waste, incineration
process is often conducted. In fact, the burning of garbage can produce
pollutants that are harmful to human health.
a. Produce liquid waste (leachate) and gaseous emissions (landfill gas) that are
potential environmental pollutants
b. Disposal sites may become ground for many disease-bearing pest and micro-
organisms.
Ultimately, recycling is the last solution for the sake of decreasing the
amount of waste in the campus landfill. Recycling can be categorized into two.
One, composting organic waste into organic fertilizer. Two, recycling inorganic
waste like plastic and beverage containers into goods that can be used. Both
landfills and recycling facilities charge fees for transportation and also often
include a surcharge for weight, therefore, the minimization of the weight of
wastes transported to landfills can decrease disposal costs (Ellis, 2011).
The benefits of recycling solid waste are substantial Recycling waste helps
to preserve our limited landfill space Recycling also reduces the need to extract
resources from their natural environment and thus helps to prevent the pollution
such removal efforts create It also saves energy and provides a less expensive
alternative to landfills and incineration Finally communities can use the materials
14
recovered through recycling to generate revenue (Office of the Federal Register
National Archives and Records Administration, 1990)
According to Hester and Harrison (2002) There are a number of reasons why
a higher level of recycling does not occur. These can be divided primarily into:
According to Jones (2009), there are some point that need to be concerned
about waste management such asa number of bins, volume/size of bins,
placement of bins, access for emptying, and frequency of emptying. Before
encountering the waste sorting process, there is one thing that needs to be
addressed by the campus that is related to the type and location of the waste
bins. Based on the survey results, it is known that the amount of waste bin in
campus basically sufficient. However, the location of the waste bins placement
are often inefficient. There are several corridors that have more than one bin. On
the other hand there are corridors and nodes that did not put bin at all.
Moreover, in some places where students usually gathered, the waste bin are
often invisible (Figure 5).
15
A littering behavior study in 2001 in Australia noted that people are more
likely to deposit waste in the proper receptacle if the bin is located within 3.5
meters of them. Another previous study done in Australia found that even after
the implementation of three-bin systems in a food court, there were still high
levels of contamination due to insufficient and confusing signage. Improved
signage resulted in the diversion of 44% of waste in the food court (Stantec
Consulting Ltd., 2009).
To check the location of waste bin, data collection were conducted in the
academic unit (faculty and department). Academic unit building usually consists
of four floors. Sampling was conducted on the floor that the most frequently
visited and used by the student. In the data collecting process, the location of
each sorting bin and a non-sorting bin marked on the map. The map of sampling
location can be seen in Figure xx.
Waste bin at the sampling location can be seen in the Figure xx. Based on
the survey results, it is known that the waste bin is dominated by non-sorting
bin. The location of waste bin placement are still not spread equally.
Until now, the number of non sorting bins of reach ...% of the total existing
bins. Some non-sorting bins even have a small capacity that requires a high
disposal frequency. This resulted in inefficiencies in waste management. In
addition, the janitor often unite the waste that has been sorted in bins during the
16
transport process. This makes the presence of sorting bin and waste sorting
process that has been conducted by the students become useless. When waste
gathered in the waste shelters and landfill, organic and inorganic waste were
mixed. This shows the lack of seriousness of waste management in sorting,
recycling, and reducing of waste volume in campus.
17
V. Recommendation
V.1 Waste Bin Placement
The placement of the waste bin can be one of solution to create a clean
campus. Triangle formed building this campus has many nodes as the meeting
point of several corridor. Nodes can be utilized as a location for waste bin
placement instead of corridor.
Currently, waste bin is often put on the corridor around the triangle park.
However, not all corridor placed the waste bin so students’ and teachers’ effort
in finding and reaching the trash becomes harder. In fact, when the waste bin is
put on each node, it can be more efficient and easily reached. Between one node
to another node can be reached in 45 seconds to 1 minute by walking so that
campus residents can stop complaining of difficulty in finding a waste bin.
Each node connecting the six corridors, so that the number of bins used in
the academic unit can also be less. The number of nodes in the academic units
on each floor amounts to ... the number of nodes show the number of bins
required for each floor in academic units. Plan of waste bin placement can be
seen in Figure xx.
Beside the size, the type waste bin is also noteworthy. Non sorting bin
should no longer used because it does not comply with waste recycling program.
The whole bins are placed at the nodes must be sorting bin. At least, sorting bin
that used are 3 types sorting bins (paper, plastic, and organic). If waste is being
properly sorted into the right streams, each waste type can directly encounter
the recycling process.
18
VI.Conclusion
Waste generation di kampus IPB memiliki jumlah yang cukup besar.
Terbatasnya kapasitas tampungan di city landfill menyebabkan terciptanya
unmanaged waste di campus landfill. Di sisi lain, kampus IPB memiliki cita-cita
untuk mewujudkan green campus yang bebas dari sampah. Untuk mengurangi
sampah, salah satu cara yang dapat dilakukan adalah daur ulang.
Waste generation in IPB has a huge amount. The limited storage capacity in
the city landfill led to the creation unmanaged waste in campus landfills. On the
other hand, the IPB has aspirations to create a green campus with waste
reduction program. To reduce waste, one of solution is waste recycling.
Current facilities is not yet supporting the recycling programs and clean
campus. There are still plenty use of non-sorting bin and also the waste
transporting process that are not separating types of waste. Moreover,
inefficiency in waste bin placement make it so hard to find waste bin in some
point in campus.
19
Acknowledgement
References
Aziz HA, SA Amr. 2016. Control and Treatment of Landfill Leachate for Sanitary
Waste Disposal. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Ellis E. (2011, November 10). New recycling system streamlines disposal, will
reduce landfill. The Cornell Daily Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/ news/content/2011/11/10/new-
recycling-system-streamlines-disposal-will-reduce-landfill
Idris A, B Inanc, MN Hassan. 2004. Overview of waste disposal and
landfills/dumps in Asian countries. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 6, 104-110.
Hester RE, RM Harrison. 2002. Environmental and Health Impact of Solid
Management Activities. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Jones ML. 2009. Sustainable Event Management: A Practical Guide. London:
Taylor & Francis
Medina M. 2007. The World’s Scavengers: Salvaging for Sustainable
Consumption and Production. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Pearce DW and I Brisson. 1995. The Economic Waste Management. Hester RE
and RM Harrison (Editor). Waste Treatment and Disposal. Cambridge: The
Royal Society of Chemistry.
The Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration.
1990. Code of Federal Regulations. US Government Printing Office
Washington.
Setiawan Y, Liyantono, M Agaton. 2015 Solid Waste Management in Bogor
Agricultural University, Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Resources
Management.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2009). Best practices review (Project No. 1056098).
Burlington, ON: Stantec Consulting Limited. Retrieved from
http://www.wdo.ca/cif/pdf/ reports/202/202_report.pdf
20
Chouhan B.M and B.K Reddy “Bio-energy scenario in India, “Journal IREDA News,
Vol. 7(1), pp. 20-27, 1996.
Mazumdar, N.B, “Municipal solid waste management the Indian perspectives,”
journal of Environment Monitor, Vol. 12(2) pp. 257-269, 1994.
Yadav I. C. and Devi N.L, “Studies on Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Mysore City- A case study,” journal of Report and Opinion, Vol. 1(3), pp.21-
24,2000.
21